This is why Dneg's the best. He always evolves and appreciates the different ways of playing rather than sticking to one strategy and hating on the unconventional players for exploiting him.
@@dnegspoker homie you're amazing at poker and the results and longevity speak for itself but do you see how you used to play when you were beasting 15 or 20 years ago? Or how all the best players in the world like Foxen and others play? You give away too much information Dan. Your TH-cam channel already gives people a huge advantage on you breaking down how you play. But engaging in talk at the table and showing your cards to people does way more damage then you know. You need to be a silent assassin on the table and thats pretty much the only way you give away little to no information. This is no knock on you and what youve done or will accomplish in the future even.
This little series so far has been excellent. Daniel setting out how his thinking has evolved since he mastered solvers during the Heads Up challenge against Polk. Interesting that the ones that do best in any era are the ones that go against current accepted wisdom a little...
If this video was 2 years old I would agree that this goes against the conventional wisdom, but these days it's pretty well known that trying to replicate a solver is far from optimal for the vast majority of people and defiantly not an idea Daniel invented. Only shit-regs and absolute geniuses who somehow have memorized all the frequencies try to replicate the solver. Everyone else has realized that exploitative play is far superior to using simplified versions of GTO as you will simply have too many leaks in your game if you are up against competent opponents and at best break even/ barely win against other mediocre GTO wannabes. As more people realize this, I really hope that online poker in a couple of years will return to its roots of being a leveling war where people are trying to exploit each other with unique approaches instead of exploits just being more or less standard deviations based on errors GTO wannabes are likely to make with some unique adjustments here and there based on the player. As an online reg myself it becomes sort of boring to play these standardized strategies. I always stick around when someone is doing something vastly different, not because it's necessarily+EV but because it's very interesting to figure out what the dude is doing and how it can be countered even if I am not always the most successful at it.
@@SkeeNnN - You need to take a break from poker and brush up on your writing ability. Your reply seems as if it was written by someone that was taught by a Mongoloid. monGOLOid
That’s a great analysis, recognizing that the outliers in poker have always played differently than the field. I think that’s why Phil does so well in low buy-in tournaments. They just can’t figure him out. Even though he has a tight image, everyone knows he is capable of randomly spazing and going zoom-zoom, especially when titled. If with that info, it’s still a tough nut to crack when he’s as careful as he is. Trapping is basically his only tool, but he uses it well.
They have, it's just that huge overbets/underbets are rarely ideal so most don't take the time/effort to study them, especially when every line you add to a solver (especially on the flop) adds exponentially to the solve time. It's just not a very economic use of one's study time to work on lines that are so rarely optimal. Also, even before solvers guys like Dwan were using huge overbets in certain spots; so Addamo is by no means the first to do it, he just seems to be one of the first that's really focused on implementing a strategy around it.
It's not that, it's that the combinatorics are insane. First, you need to study 1/3 pot, 1/2 pot, pot, etc. in order to understand your opponents' strategies. Then, you need to start studying unconventional lines to understand how they deviate from the more common lines, and understand what a good strategy would look like with non-standard bet sizes. Oh, and you also need to see how your opponents are adjusting to your new sizing so you can determine how to update your own strategy. It's asking an awful lot out of people, and there aren't many who are willing to invest this amount of time & effort into just studying.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 oh definitely, I'm mostly kidding -- of course people have played around with different bet sizes in solvers, and overbetting was always a thing (albeit rare), and Buttonclickr and some other HUNL guys had figured out overbets for HU. just surprising that Addamo was the first to really crunch the numbers and figure out massive overbet spots for MTTs, to such an extent that it surprised everyone and that he made $12m in a year or whatever
My game improved a lot when I stopped following traditional poker strategies like card ranges for each position, raising and re-raising pre-flop. I play a 45% range from all positions, I really don't care about position, to me it makes no difference. I also limp all my hands, I never raise preflop. Either everyone folds or over limp, and if someone raises I just cold call, does not matter, it just tells me they might have an A or K in their hand. Doing that allows me to see basically almost all flops for cheap. When I started doing that I was able to reach the bubble and final tables most of the time.
My Game is now much like you play. Limp, call mild raises, raise with optimum pairs. Position play~stay clear of the fish.~ Even when raising 4x pot with AA~ fish calls with 4/6 and wins.
Watching you got me into poker with the rest of the guys You're great and I really wish I could have saw Stu Ungar play You have a clairvoyant nature and I heard Stu was the master
Your the man by going into depth on this stuff. I have jump in the deep end into GTO to build a good understanding. But at 36yr old I have too much oldschool in me to not try and mix it up and evolve with the table.
When you look at how solvers check-raise the flop they usually use much more merged ranges than most people think. You need to have high, middle and low equity hands that give you the nuts on lots of runouts. If we make a weak club or unpaired ace fold here (which makes up quite a lot of Adamo's range), then it is a great outcome.
I took the hybridpoker IQ test, I got 62, all questions are cash game questions, I primarily play MTT and Sit n Go, there were spots that were easy folds in a SNG and fold wasn't an option. I'd love to play Sit N Go tourneys all day with anyone who scored 100. I'm sure it's good software, I wonder if they have ICM aware tests. All questions were even starting stacks of 1000, so there were no short stack considerations, no bubble play considerations, some of the spots you're put into were awkward for me because I would do everything I can to stay out of those spots and the people I play with don't play selected hands/call/raise nearly as wide as any solver. Good luck to the ones lucky enough to win, the $50k staking package
It’s weird and inspiring how much Dnegs seems to change from year to year. Feels like a while ago it was all GTO and computer play, but now he seems to be back to play a highly exploitative poker. I guess if you truly understand GTO, you have a gigantic advantage when you decide to deviate and introduce imbalances in your play.
"finding out where I am" - That's my strategy. How many times do you see some idiot who checks on the flop or turn, only to get to the river and have ZERO information on where they are? It's like "dude, had you just done a small raise post-flop, you'd have some information on what your opp had, now you're in the dark with absolutely no idea if the ALL-IN is because you look weak or they have the nuts". I see all these supposed pros who make terrible calls because their play is all over the place. And they have no idea how to put together a narrative to figure out what they are facing.
That's funny I didn't know that but I play PLO and almost always dinky bet 3 of a suit and people almost always fold, and it allows me to check when I flop the Ace high flush OR dinky bet.
My main hobby is chess and I have watched computers take over (I started plying before they were the absolute beats they are today). It is interesting to see top-tier poker players go through the same dismissing of results like chess players did 25+ years ago. Now, generally, the only dismissal of chess computer analysis is when the lines are just too unbelievable, I can't wait for when this happens to poker, though I doubt it will as the problems are "closed".
@@tomonetruth in that the hands are solved individually, player trends are not included which is a huge aspect of the game. Chess programs solve to a ply, (each individual move is one ply), so a program may calculate to 30ply (15 moves by each player) which may or may not finish the game. A hand in poker is one piece of a tournament or cash game, so I called it closed. I hope that rambling makes sense.
@@50yrOldTennisImprover yes, I think so - it's closed because it's just an incident, not a complete game. That makes a lot of sense - playing gt optimal chess always means playing the move that leads to a win, whereas gt optimal poker often requires deliberately losing (folding) hands that could be won by playing suboptimally.
@@50yrOldTennisImprover "player trends are not included which is a huge aspect of the game" - aren't solvers meant to approximate gto, though? in which case player trends are inconsequential.
Live poker is so frustrating. I play $2/$3 and feel like I have a pretty good handle on ranges and what flops I'm supposed to be betting/checking, but I keep getting my money in at 60-40+ odds but inevitably lose on the turn/river.
Yeah I've been working on gto and some of the solver solutions seem asinine. Most of the solutions make sense and have opened my eyes to other lines of thinking.
I hate it when those big guys bully at the table; using their legs to make you uncomfortable. It happens to me all the time; the don't move when you ask nicely. I call the floor and make them balance the table. Those tables with corners totally suck.
There's a phrase that's popular called "Giving someone their flowers" and the phrase is easy to understand - you give credit where credit is due. And it's so awesome that you give Vanessa Selbts her flowers
i took the tset, im high as a kite, so the 3 first question i kinda moved on without changing the bar, and got them all wrong, but then oncei realized how to navigate, i got same score as you daniel, im maybe a prodigy!! i wonder what score would be if i didnt get 100% error on the first 3
I'm definately not an expert, but always figured that 'being balanced' / GTO approach was waaay overvalued. Sure if you play against the same player pool constantly it's more valid, but regular people playing poker don't have to worry about that.
Hey Dnegs do you think as a major poker personality that people are able/trying to find ways to exploit you more than normal players because a lot of the hands that you’ve played are so public?
Yes I remember now, this was a spot where the solver wanted to call with KK-TT and fold AK-AT. I remember this because I spent some time trying to figure out why the fuck the solver wanted to do that and I never managed to.
I was crushing my homegame for years. Last 6 months they are crushing me. When I look at the key hands after the session I am convinced I ran bad for the most part. But in fact I also lost confidence in play Standard Spots and that really bothers me…. How to change that…?
Hey Daniel, why don’t you do a reaction to your old videos from when you were sponsored by Wynn and doing the heads up challenge? The one where you’re shining light on Small Ball?
I don't see why Dnegs thinks the solver is stupid. It makes obvious sense. On a monotone board if you have the nuts, it's likely your opponent has very thin value so you don't want to blow him off his hand and if you don't have anything you can often get folds for cheap. Dnegs raised "targeting" the "silly" strategy but it's just tantamount to a bluff. If your opponent has you crushed congrats you just punted 17K, if not you risked a lot to win a little.
I really enjoy listening to your thought process however I believe small CBet is BRILLIANT. The beauty of the small cbet on a monotone boards is it can’t be exploited. You can bet your entire range and it almost never a mistake. You can get better hands to fold with air for dirty cheap. It only need to work less than 20% of the time. It’s tough for a player to continue on monotone out of position without that suit especially against turn barrels. If you get raised you comfortably fold your air and lose the minimum. Adammo never hand to worry if he folded the best hand. No one is re raise bluffing on monotone boards with pure air it’s suicide. When you do flop a flush you keep your opponent range wide and get value on the turn. When you flop a flush and get re raise your opponent range is well defined. They most likely have 2 pair or a set and a long a the board doesn’t pair you will have the best hand quite often. With the A of that suit if you face a re raise you got options and you don’t have to call a huge raise size because you bet small of the flop. Opponents rarely re raising a flop flush because it lets you get off the hook with your air. If you are betting into a flop flush in position you can realize your equity for a small investment with the bet check decide line.
I've been saying for a while that there is no way for me to win with a GTO approach, just because there are too many people who can do it better than I. However, I do understand the math, and I'd like to put together two different unexploitable ranges and switch between them. A range doesn't have to be GTO to be unexploitable; it just has to be properly balanced. It will still lose in the long run to a perfect GTO approach, but only because it is not optimized. That is, GTO is an optimized, unexploitable range, but there are other unexploitable ranges. The first range would use bigger bets and a higher percentage of bluffs, while dropping a lot of thin value bets. It sounds crazy that bigger bets mean a higher percentage of bluffs, but it does. If you really want to discuss it I am willing to, but if you just want to "correct me" and don't want to talk some serious math, then please don't bother. I do have the math to back it up. The short answer is that you aren't bluffing more, you're just value betting less, just checking a lot of thin value that a GTO range would be betting. This makes for a higher percentage of bluffs vs value bets, not a higher percentage of bluffs overall. In fact, both go down in overall percentage, but value bets go down more than bluffs. The second range would use even smaller bets than GTO, which means fewer bluffs and a lower bluff percentage. My idea is that the really good players would think that I have an exploitable pattern and would try to adjust to this in an exploitative way. By deviating from GTO, they are themselves exploitable. I would switch between my two ranges depending on whom I am against in a particular hand. The attempts to exploit my oversize betting would actually lose even more to the smaller-size ranges, and vice versa.
Are solvers an online poker thing? I never play. Or wish to play online. It’s boring. Plus being behind a computer and phone all day at work has made me sick of computers lol
So Hybrid poker looked good. A couple spots I question, 1. It's says to fold JJ on the btn to a CO raise 25% of the time. 2. Fold AQo in the SB to an UG open 100% of the time. And it appears to be cash game gto so not much h good for a tournament player.
Is it ever considered a strategy to make wild shoves with air and in a way *want* to get called just so it messes with your image, even if you get knocked out that particular moment? (So you can induce more calls with the nuts down the line) Like once people knew Daniel was never bluffing the river, presumably he started bluffing more, are we basically saying that he was intentionally losing hands/situations, or at least being willing to lose in those spots, to influence his own image in the grander scheme?
Daniel saying solvers are geniuses but also dumb reminds me a lot of GothamChess talking about chess engines. They're geniuses but they make moves that make no sense for a human because a human can't follow the strategy the way a computer can. If you can't compute 30 moves ahead then the best move isn't always the best move for you.
Hey Daniel, I love this type of content thanks for making this. I just wanted to point out that in bvb hands in LIMPED hands, the gto strategy involves an 80% CHECK across monotone flops. Seems a little different than how you are perceiving this spot. Obviously this hand is different as it was a raised pot but it is certainly not the strategy you highlighted in the beginning across all bvb spots
I think the future will be experts limping pre flop more often. Every coach says never do that and if the first one in to raise. The limps will throw off the new experts. Wont know what to do.
Sure they will. It's not hard to construct a range for limps and work out what to do against them. Daniel totally overrates how much this aspect was responsible for his success.
Even the biggest idiots in poker will get curious when they see you constantly throwing out biggish bets, that’s why some balance is always key. The exploitable part of the equation in those guys is betting whatever you want when you know they will chase whatever
Raise, reraise,, reraise, blah, blah etc. GTO will get a player to the final table 5X as many times as long as a player rebuys 5X as many times. The only certainty of GTO is higher volatility, and with more risk, careful consideration should be given to GTO actual return.
Hi, I like your videos, very educating. (off topic: in the background there is something from 1999 mentioning Trump Taj Mahal. Wouldn't it be nice to put sth else there, that is not so controversial as the name Trump? Thanks for considering).
This is why Dneg's the best. He always evolves and appreciates the different ways of playing rather than sticking to one strategy and hating on the unconventional players for exploiting him.
Dnegs is the best because he also crushes mixed games
He says that then plays like a noob always
Always gotta try and stay one step ahead of em'
@@dnegspoker homie you're amazing at poker and the results and longevity speak for itself but do you see how you used to play when you were beasting 15 or 20 years ago? Or how all the best players in the world like Foxen and others play? You give away too much information Dan. Your TH-cam channel already gives people a huge advantage on you breaking down how you play. But engaging in talk at the table and showing your cards to people does way more damage then you know. You need to be a silent assassin on the table and thats pretty much the only way you give away little to no information. This is no knock on you and what youve done or will accomplish in the future even.
@@dnegspoker - If a player checks out of turn, then check-raises you all-in, is that an angle? Asking for PokerFaceAsh.
This little series so far has been excellent. Daniel setting out how his thinking has evolved since he mastered solvers during the Heads Up challenge against Polk. Interesting that the ones that do best in any era are the ones that go against current accepted wisdom a little...
its almost like they write a book to tell you how to play, then they can easily exploit you, because they know what the "book" says. lmao
💯 agree
If this video was 2 years old I would agree that this goes against the conventional wisdom, but these days it's pretty well known that trying to replicate a solver is far from optimal for the vast majority of people and defiantly not an idea Daniel invented. Only shit-regs and absolute geniuses who somehow have memorized all the frequencies try to replicate the solver. Everyone else has realized that exploitative play is far superior to using simplified versions of GTO as you will simply have too many leaks in your game if you are up against competent opponents and at best break even/ barely win against other mediocre GTO wannabes. As more people realize this, I really hope that online poker in a couple of years will return to its roots of being a leveling war where people are trying to exploit each other with unique approaches instead of exploits just being more or less standard deviations based on errors GTO wannabes are likely to make with some unique adjustments here and there based on the player. As an online reg myself it becomes sort of boring to play these standardized strategies. I always stick around when someone is doing something vastly different, not because it's necessarily+EV but because it's very interesting to figure out what the dude is doing and how it can be countered even if I am not always the most successful at it.
It's been like that since I started. The consensus mocks the unconventional until they realize... hmm... this might just be good.
@@SkeeNnN - You need to take a break from poker and brush up on your writing ability. Your reply seems as if it was written by someone that was taught by a Mongoloid. monGOLOid
I love watching a master work on his craft. Amazing video as usual
Willing to learn ,never putting other players down in a mean way.
Just a top top player..thats it really
Thank you very much, Daniel, for teaching us and educating us
@ᎠᎪΝᏆᎬᏞ ΝᎬᏀᎡᎬᎪΝႮ
Hi, Daniel
Is this correct your number or someone is using your name 🤔???
That’s a great analysis, recognizing that the outliers in poker have always played differently than the field. I think that’s why Phil does so well in low buy-in tournaments. They just can’t figure him out. Even though he has a tight image, everyone knows he is capable of randomly spazing and going zoom-zoom, especially when titled. If with that info, it’s still a tough nut to crack when he’s as careful as he is. Trapping is basically his only tool, but he uses it well.
5:10 "Addamo's a beast, I've got position on him, so he's got absolutely nowhere to put his legs" 😅
Super interesting analysis. You, Phil and Addamo are fun to watch because you all play outside the GTO box. Great vid, thanks!
Addamo plays super GTO. He just does it differently to others.
@@killed_bya_bot7775 thanks, he is fun to watch. 😁
These videos are gems,thanks Daniel.
Daniel, by far this is the best content on TH-cam !!!.....Thank you for sharing !!!.
Addamo will 100% watch this and he will get butterflies when he hears himself compared to Selbst
Great combination of entertaining and informative.
You know who I have never seen bluff the river on TV poker despite a maniac’s rep? Tony G…
Heading to hybrid poker now. Thanks Daniel!!!!! I could definitely use that prize package!!!!!!!
Just took my test .. I need some help before that tourney begins.
I’ll check out Hybrid… but I’m really holding my breath for the “Hee-Haw or Naw… should I Caw” new release. 😂☘️
it's kind of hilarious to me that no one (before Addamo) had thought of, "wait, what if I put different bet sizes into solvers?"
They have, it's just that huge overbets/underbets are rarely ideal so most don't take the time/effort to study them, especially when every line you add to a solver (especially on the flop) adds exponentially to the solve time. It's just not a very economic use of one's study time to work on lines that are so rarely optimal. Also, even before solvers guys like Dwan were using huge overbets in certain spots; so Addamo is by no means the first to do it, he just seems to be one of the first that's really focused on implementing a strategy around it.
It's not that, it's that the combinatorics are insane. First, you need to study 1/3 pot, 1/2 pot, pot, etc. in order to understand your opponents' strategies. Then, you need to start studying unconventional lines to understand how they deviate from the more common lines, and understand what a good strategy would look like with non-standard bet sizes. Oh, and you also need to see how your opponents are adjusting to your new sizing so you can determine how to update your own strategy.
It's asking an awful lot out of people, and there aren't many who are willing to invest this amount of time & effort into just studying.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 oh definitely, I'm mostly kidding -- of course people have played around with different bet sizes in solvers, and overbetting was always a thing (albeit rare), and Buttonclickr and some other HUNL guys had figured out overbets for HU.
just surprising that Addamo was the first to really crunch the numbers and figure out massive overbet spots for MTTs, to such an extent that it surprised everyone and that he made $12m in a year or whatever
My game improved a lot when I stopped following traditional poker strategies like card ranges for each position, raising and re-raising pre-flop. I play a 45% range from all positions, I really don't care about position, to me it makes no difference. I also limp all my hands, I never raise preflop. Either everyone folds or over limp, and if someone raises I just cold call, does not matter, it just tells me they might have an A or K in their hand. Doing that allows me to see basically almost all flops for cheap. When I started doing that I was able to reach the bubble and final tables most of the time.
My Game is now much like you play. Limp, call mild raises, raise with optimum pairs. Position play~stay clear of the fish.~ Even when raising 4x pot with AA~ fish calls with 4/6 and wins.
@@Phantom-Eye you're the fish. Keep working on your game
Watching you got me into poker with the rest of the guys
You're great and I really wish I could have saw Stu Ungar play
You have a clairvoyant nature and I heard Stu was the master
Your the man by going into depth on this stuff. I have jump in the deep end into GTO to build a good understanding. But at 36yr old I have too much oldschool in me to not try and mix it up and evolve with the table.
I love your videos so much, thank you Daniel! You’re a treat
Excellent analysis video thank you
I am more interested in Sean Winter freaking out about where he will place his legs TBH. 😅
Don’t be fooled - I was more interested in the table negotiations regarding leg room.
When you look at how solvers check-raise the flop they usually use much more merged ranges than most people think. You need to have high, middle and low equity hands that give you the nuts on lots of runouts. If we make a weak club or unpaired ace fold here (which makes up quite a lot of Adamo's range), then it is a great outcome.
Sorry for having to ask this but what's a solver exactly?
Very nice of foxen to sacrifice leg room for his opponent. Although that could be an angle 😂
I took the hybridpoker IQ test, I got 62, all questions are cash game questions, I primarily play MTT and Sit n Go, there were spots that were easy folds in a SNG and fold wasn't an option. I'd love to play Sit N Go tourneys all day with anyone who scored 100. I'm sure it's good software, I wonder if they have ICM aware tests. All questions were even starting stacks of 1000, so there were no short stack considerations, no bubble play considerations, some of the spots you're put into were awkward for me because I would do everything I can to stay out of those spots and the people I play with don't play selected hands/call/raise nearly as wide as any solver. Good luck to the ones lucky enough to win, the $50k staking package
It’s weird and inspiring how much Dnegs seems to change from year to year. Feels like a while ago it was all GTO and computer play, but now he seems to be back to play a highly exploitative poker.
I guess if you truly understand GTO, you have a gigantic advantage when you decide to deviate and introduce imbalances in your play.
"finding out where I am" - That's my strategy. How many times do you see some idiot who checks on the flop or turn, only to get to the river and have ZERO information on where they are? It's like "dude, had you just done a small raise post-flop, you'd have some information on what your opp had, now you're in the dark with absolutely no idea if the ALL-IN is because you look weak or they have the nuts".
I see all these supposed pros who make terrible calls because their play is all over the place. And they have no idea how to put together a narrative to figure out what they are facing.
That's funny I didn't know that but I play PLO and almost always dinky bet 3 of a suit and people almost always fold, and it allows me to check when I flop the Ace high flush OR dinky bet.
My main hobby is chess and I have watched computers take over (I started plying before they were the absolute beats they are today). It is interesting to see top-tier poker players go through the same dismissing of results like chess players did 25+ years ago. Now, generally, the only dismissal of chess computer analysis is when the lines are just too unbelievable, I can't wait for when this happens to poker, though I doubt it will as the problems are "closed".
interesting perspective. in what way are poker problems "closed"?
@@tomonetruth in that the hands are solved individually, player trends are not included which is a huge aspect of the game. Chess programs solve to a ply, (each individual move is one ply), so a program may calculate to 30ply (15 moves by each player) which may or may not finish the game. A hand in poker is one piece of a tournament or cash game, so I called it closed. I hope that rambling makes sense.
@@50yrOldTennisImprover yes, I think so - it's closed because it's just an incident, not a complete game. That makes a lot of sense - playing gt optimal chess always means playing the move that leads to a win, whereas gt optimal poker often requires deliberately losing (folding) hands that could be won by playing suboptimally.
...so a chess game, played optimally, will always deliver a win, whereas a poker hand, played optimally, will often mean folding the best hand.
@@50yrOldTennisImprover "player trends are not included which is a huge aspect of the game" - aren't solvers meant to approximate gto, though? in which case player trends are inconsequential.
Once the first poker clip started I just got locked on winter and foxens convo about their legs 😂😂 completely forgot this was about addamo
Live poker is so frustrating. I play $2/$3 and feel like I have a pretty good handle on ranges and what flops I'm supposed to be betting/checking, but I keep getting my money in at 60-40+ odds but inevitably lose on the turn/river.
thanks for the knowlege sharing dnges ! and i am dying with your impressions your so funyy!! hahahaha love ya
thumbnail is a little off on the sides
Yeah I've been working on gto and some of the solver solutions seem asinine. Most of the solutions make sense and have opened my eyes to other lines of thinking.
Finding out where your at with a raise can still be balanced.
i love you dude. your a good guy and thx for the videos.
The timing of the watch 😂
AI getting too smart.
I absolutely love both the Mike the Mouth comment and Daniel declaring solvers are idiots and have a weakness 😂😂😂
I hate it when those big guys bully at the table; using their legs to make you uncomfortable. It happens to me all the time; the don't move when you ask nicely. I call the floor and make them balance the table. Those tables with corners totally suck.
The Rinky dinky bet, dnegs has finally lost his mind! Love it
7:10 so funny 😂
There's a phrase that's popular called "Giving someone their flowers" and the phrase is easy to understand - you give credit where credit is due. And it's so awesome that you give Vanessa Selbts her flowers
Pretty funny. You make some great points
i took the tset, im high as a kite, so the 3 first question i kinda moved on without changing the bar, and got them all wrong, but then oncei realized how to navigate, i got same score as you daniel, im maybe a prodigy!! i wonder what score would be if i didnt get 100% error on the first 3
Wife sticks her head in to tell one of the best poker players in history how the game is. Classic.
I'm definately not an expert, but always figured that 'being balanced' / GTO approach was waaay overvalued. Sure if you play against the same player pool constantly it's more valid, but regular people playing poker don't have to worry about that.
Hey Dnegs do you think as a major poker personality that people are able/trying to find ways to exploit you more than normal players because a lot of the hands that you’ve played are so public?
Results show....
Daniel, seems you break down hands you won. How about some hands where you took a line where you felt you had to fold or just lost?
Preeeetty sure the solver doesn't want you to call that Addamo shove with AK. I'd have to check again.
Yes I remember now, this was a spot where the solver wanted to call with KK-TT and fold AK-AT. I remember this because I spent some time trying to figure out why the fuck the solver wanted to do that and I never managed to.
(Aaaand I just figured out why, let's go :D)
i agree with your watch on Vanessa Selbst
I was crushing my homegame for years. Last 6 months they are crushing me. When I look at the key hands after the session I am convinced I ran bad for the most part. But in fact I also lost confidence in play Standard Spots and that really bothers me…. How to change that…?
Danny dropped his balls on the table and said “fuhgetaboutit” lol.
I couldn't figure out how the betting slide scale works on the iq test.
I'd love to see you do a video that covers in depth how the meta game has evolved in poker over the years.
Because of you everybody is limping on ps 😅 thanks for that 😉✌🏽
I’m taking notes🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
Hey Daniel, why don’t you do a reaction to your old videos from when you were sponsored by Wynn and doing the heads up challenge? The one where you’re shining light on Small Ball?
WHAT IS THE OUTRO SONG CALLED PLEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!!!!!!!!
Ocean Roads by Swif7
Great player.I really enjoyed
i didn't understand the point. i thought we were discussing a hand were daniel got knocked out of a tourny
Negraenu going for that Arthur Morgan look im for it
I don't see why Dnegs thinks the solver is stupid. It makes obvious sense. On a monotone board if you have the nuts, it's likely your opponent has very thin value so you don't want to blow him off his hand and if you don't have anything you can often get folds for cheap. Dnegs raised "targeting" the "silly" strategy but it's just tantamount to a bluff. If your opponent has you crushed congrats you just punted 17K, if not you risked a lot to win a little.
I really enjoy listening to your thought process however I believe small CBet is BRILLIANT. The beauty of the small cbet on a monotone boards is it can’t be exploited. You can bet your entire range and it almost never a mistake. You can get better hands to fold with air for dirty cheap. It only need to work less than 20% of the time. It’s tough for a player to continue on monotone out of position without that suit especially against turn barrels. If you get raised you comfortably fold your air and lose the minimum. Adammo never hand to worry if he folded the best hand. No one is re raise bluffing on monotone boards with pure air it’s suicide. When you do flop a flush you keep your opponent range wide and get value on the turn. When you flop a flush and get re raise your opponent range is well defined. They most likely have 2 pair or a set and a long a the board doesn’t pair you will have the best hand quite often. With the A of that suit if you face a re raise you got options and you don’t have to call a huge raise size because you bet small of the flop. Opponents rarely re raising a flop flush because it lets you get off the hook with your air. If you are betting into a flop flush in position you can realize your equity for a small investment with the bet check decide line.
Good stuff
Who owns hybrid poker and can other poker players buy the data?
love how these 2 are still going at it over friggin leg room!! its a poker table not an airplane seat
I've been saying for a while that there is no way for me to win with a GTO approach, just because there are too many people who can do it better than I. However, I do understand the math, and I'd like to put together two different unexploitable ranges and switch between them.
A range doesn't have to be GTO to be unexploitable; it just has to be properly balanced. It will still lose in the long run to a perfect GTO approach, but only because it is not optimized. That is, GTO is an optimized, unexploitable range, but there are other unexploitable ranges.
The first range would use bigger bets and a higher percentage of bluffs, while dropping a lot of thin value bets. It sounds crazy that bigger bets mean a higher percentage of bluffs, but it does. If you really want to discuss it I am willing to, but if you just want to "correct me" and don't want to talk some serious math, then please don't bother. I do have the math to back it up. The short answer is that you aren't bluffing more, you're just value betting less, just checking a lot of thin value that a GTO range would be betting. This makes for a higher percentage of bluffs vs value bets, not a higher percentage of bluffs overall. In fact, both go down in overall percentage, but value bets go down more than bluffs.
The second range would use even smaller bets than GTO, which means fewer bluffs and a lower bluff percentage.
My idea is that the really good players would think that I have an exploitable pattern and would try to adjust to this in an exploitative way. By deviating from GTO, they are themselves exploitable. I would switch between my two ranges depending on whom I am against in a particular hand. The attempts to exploit my oversize betting would actually lose even more to the smaller-size ranges, and vice versa.
11:00 do you call 96o pre?
Min bet is pretty much a check.
Has Daniel showed is hand since the Vegas incident? Did it heal all good
daniel sayinggood things about hellmuth 🤣🤣🤣
Siri destroyed Vanessa Selbst 😂
Are solvers an online poker thing? I never play. Or wish to play online. It’s boring. Plus being behind a computer and phone all day at work has made me sick of computers lol
So Hybrid poker looked good. A couple spots I question, 1. It's says to fold JJ on the btn to a CO raise 25% of the time.
2. Fold AQo in the SB to an UG open 100% of the time.
And it appears to be cash game gto so not much h good for a tournament player.
Is it ever considered a strategy to make wild shoves with air and in a way *want* to get called just so it messes with your image, even if you get knocked out that particular moment?
(So you can induce more calls with the nuts down the line)
Like once people knew Daniel was never bluffing the river, presumably he started bluffing more, are we basically saying that he was intentionally losing hands/situations, or at least being willing to lose in those spots, to influence his own image in the grander scheme?
I'm personally more interested in the side conversation between Foxen and Winters. That leg room shit is a real thing at the tables...
guy in the sunglasses needs assertiveness training
bro addamo isnt joking in that spot, 45% to call 400% and 40% for 200% required
Daniel saying solvers are geniuses but also dumb reminds me a lot of GothamChess talking about chess engines. They're geniuses but they make moves that make no sense for a human because a human can't follow the strategy the way a computer can. If you can't compute 30 moves ahead then the best move isn't always the best move for you.
7:08 😂😂
Hey Daniel, I love this type of content thanks for making this. I just wanted to point out that in bvb hands in LIMPED hands, the gto strategy involves an 80% CHECK across monotone flops. Seems a little different than how you are perceiving this spot. Obviously this hand is different as it was a raised pot but it is certainly not the strategy you highlighted in the beginning across all bvb spots
Love to listen to the listening logs on that watch...
4:27 freudian slip
Even his watch knew that comment about selbst was sus
But who won the great leg debate?
I bought that GTO book on Daniels recommendation, and it is a good book but I considered rock paper scissors myself
Which book is that?
@@AnandRaj-dl3df
Modern Poker Theory by Michael Acevedo
That guy at the table is wearing a mask whilst touching the same chips everyone touches! :)) Well done buddy! Well done!
After this i wen to watch "he called with q10 honey"
Addamo doesn’t input anything into solvers, He IS a Solver!
what did you put in your eyelashes man ;)
i was distractedly by the bickering
I think the future will be experts limping pre flop more often. Every coach says never do that and if the first one in to raise. The limps will throw off the new experts. Wont know what to do.
Sure they will. It's not hard to construct a range for limps and work out what to do against them. Daniel totally overrates how much this aspect was responsible for his success.
I mean..if you've got 2 empty seats to your right, you cant bitch about not having room lmao
Even the biggest idiots in poker will get curious when they see you constantly throwing out biggish bets, that’s why some balance is always key. The exploitable part of the equation in those guys is betting whatever you want when you know they will chase whatever
“Honey, this idiot raised me on the flop with Q8, he can’t even spell Pokre!”
@Danielnegreanu. thanks man, good luck at the tables, please don’t ever stop trolling phil.
OMG im one of first few to comment 😱 dunno if you”ll see these.. YOU ARE MY HERO Daniel ❤ always rootin for yah. Mount Rushmore of poker. Take care!
Ewww dude gross. Do you think he’s going to give you money or something? Sad world
@@kevlar785 Nope. Just a fan sir 🥰 im still a poor boy doing the grind at the micro stakes. 😍 but gotta start somewhere 😓
Raise, reraise,, reraise, blah, blah etc. GTO will get a player to the final table 5X as many times as long as a player rebuys 5X as many times. The only certainty of GTO is higher volatility, and with more risk, careful consideration should be given to GTO actual return.
GTO's only purpose is to be able to exploit more, by adjusting from a baseline. Playing pure GTO makes no sense.
Hi, I like your videos, very educating. (off topic: in the background there is something from 1999 mentioning Trump Taj Mahal. Wouldn't it be nice to put sth else there, that is not so controversial as the name Trump? Thanks for considering).
Big D youare the best